Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> Look ma, I made (
> [ mf:name "extendedType-literal-eq" ;
> rdfs:comment "Test FILTER match on extended type." ]
>
> [ mf:name "extendedType-literal-ne" ;
> rdfs:comment "Test FILTER negative match on extended type." ]
>
> [ mf:name "extendedType-graph" ;
> rdfs:comment "Test graph match on extended type." ] ) and
> tested them all. Can I have my gameboy back now?
Before you get your gameboy back ...
I am unclear as to what happnes with this:
'XXI'^^:romanNumeral = 21
Is it an evaluation failure (types not compatible) or false (not known to be true).
It says (11.2.3.1):
"""
11.2.3.1 sop:RDFterm-equal
Returns TRUE if the two arguments are the same RDF term or if they are literals
known to have the same value. The latter is tested with an XQuery function
appropriate to the arguments.
"""
Which XQuery function is to be applied in the case of an unknown datatype?
Another way of asking the question might be what happens about any type
promotion for RDF terms because r:Term is a super type of r:Literal but is
r:Literal a supertype of something xsd:integer? I think rq23 does not say it is.
And for:
'XXI'^^:romanNumeral != 21
If that is false (not known to be the same value) and not an evaluation failure,
how does it work for incompatible types? is it the case that there is no
possible evaluation failure based on incompatible types?
Andy